This is
a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
This matter comes before the Court at the present time for
consideration of ten pending motions filed by plaintiff Dylan
Downey. The pending motions include two motions challenging
the sufficiency of defendants' answers and/or objections
to plaintiff's requests for admission (Dkts. 94, 95),
four motions to compel the production of documents (Dkts. 96,
97, 98, 99), a motion to extend the discovery deadline (Dkt.
101), a motion for clarification of the Court's prior
Order compelling defendants to produce photographs (Dkt.
110), a motion for extension of time to respond to
defendants' summary judgment motion (Dkt. 134), and a
motion for leave to file an over-length brief in opposition
to summary judgment (Dkt. 136).

The
Court, having considered each of these motions,
defendants' responses to the pending motions, and the
balance of the record, hereby finds and ORDERS as follows:

(1)
Plaintiff's motions challenging the sufficiency of
defendants' answers and/or objections to his requests for
admission (Dkts. 94, 95) are DENIED. Plaintiff, by way of
these motions, challenges the sufficiency of the answers
defendants John Hatchell and Tony Aston provided to his
requests for admission, claiming that defendants are feigning
ignorance, being evasive, objecting on frivolous grounds, and
intentionally misconstruing the wording of the requests
“so as to feign confusion.” (See id.)
Plaintiff asks that defendants Hatchell and Aston be directed
to provide complete denials, or complete admissions to his
requests.[1] (Id.) Defendants oppose
plaintiff's motions, arguing that plaintiff's
requests for admission are defective, that his requests for
complete denials or admissions are not supported by the
rules, and that their objections to the requests are well
grounded. (See Dkts. 104, 105.)

Rule 36
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a party to
serve on any other party a written request to admit the truth
of any matters within the scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b) that
relate to statements or opinions of fact or of the
application of law to fact. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
36(a)(1). Rule 36 is not a discovery device; i.e., a
device to discover facts. See Workman v.
Chinchinian, 807 F.Supp. 634, 648 (E.D. Wash. 1992).
Rather, the purpose of Rule 36(a) “is to expedite trial
by eliminating the necessity of proving undisputed issues and
thus narrowing the range of issues for trial.”
Id. at 647.

Because the purpose of requests for admission is to narrow
the issues of the case, The requesting party bears the burden
of setting forth its requests simply, directly, not vaguely
or ambiguously, and in such a manner that they can be
answered with a simple admit or deny without an explanation,
and in certain instances, permit a qualification or
explanation for purposes of clarification. . . . To
facilitate clear and succinct responses, the facts stated
within the request must be singularly, specifically, and
carefully detailed.

“Requests
for admission may not contain compound, conjunctive, or
disjunctive (e.g., “and/or”) statements. U.S.
ex rel. Englund v. Los Angeles County, 235 F.R.D. 675,
684 (E.D. Cal. 2006) (citation omitted). In addition,
requests for admission many not be employed “to
establish facts which are obviously in dispute, ” or to
demand that the opposing party admit the truth of a legal
conclusion. See Lakehead Pipe Line Co. v. American Home
Assur. Co., 177 F.R.D. 454, 458 (D.Minn.1997) (citations
omitted).

Defendant
Hatchell objected to each of the requests for admission
directed to him on the grounds that they were vague and
ambiguous. (See Dkt. 94 at 8-10.) Defendant also
objected to various requests on the grounds that they called
for legal conclusions and sought information outside of his
knowledge. (See id.) Defendant Hatchell's
objections are well taken as plaintiff consistently failed to
define relevant terms in his requests for admission, and most
of the requests called for legal conclusions. Despite these
deficiencies, defendant Hatchell, without waiving his various
objections, did respond to each request with a specific
denial. (See id.) Plaintiff fails to establish that
defendant Hatchell's responses and/or objections to his
requests for admission were improper, and plaintiff's
request that defendant Hatchell be directed to provide
complete denials or complete admissions must be denied.

Defendant
Aston responded to each of plaintiff's requests for
admission by indicating that he could “neither admit
nor deny the statement in [the] request for admission . . .
because it does not present a fact that can be admitted or
denied. Instead the request seeks information which is not
appropriate for a request for admission.” (See
Dkt. 95 at 14-16.) Defendant Aston further objected on the
grounds that the requests were vague and confusing, and that
they called for legal conclusions. (See id.) Once
again, defendant's objections are well taken. In
particular, it appears clear that plaintiff was attempting to
use the requests directed to defendant Aston to seek
information and not to narrow the issues of the case.
(See id.) The requests were also unquestionably
confusing and not susceptible of simple admissions or
denials. Plaintiff fails to establish that defendant
Aston's objections to his requests for admission were
improper, and plaintiff's request that defendant Aston be
directed to provide complete denials or complete admissions
must be denied.

(2)
Plaintiff's motions to compel production of documents
(Dkts. 96, 97, 98, 99) are DENIED. Plaintiff seeks an order
compelling defendants Hatchell, Huntsinger, Dilley and Dizon
to produce certain requested documents. These motions are
substantially similar to a series of prior motions to compel
which were denied by the Court. (See Dkts. 64,
68-73, 79-82, 108.) Though these motions lack the same
clarity as plaintiff's first series of motions to compel,
the record makes clear that once again at issue are official
Snohomish County documents which plaintiff requested from
individual defendants and which the individual defendants
indicated they could not produce because they had no
responsive documents in their possession or control.
(See Dkts. 106, 108.)

Defendants
argue in response to plaintiff's current motions to
compel, as they did in response to plaintiff's first
series of motions, that the motions fail because plaintiff
did not meet and confer, nor did he make a good faith effort
to resolve the discovery disputes, prior to filing the
motions as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and the Local Rules of this Court. (See Dkts. 106,
108.) Defendants also argue that even if plaintiff did act in
good faith and satisfy the procedural requirements set forth
in Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(1) and LCR 37(a)(1), his motions fail
on the merits. (Id.)

The
Court addressed all of these arguments in ruling on
plaintiff's first series of motions to compel and
determined, albeit reluctantly, that though plaintiff had
failed to fully comply with the procedural requirements
before filing his motions, it was nevertheless appropriate to
reach the merits of the motions. (See Dkt. 108 at
2-3.) And, with respect to the merits of the motions, the
Court concluded that because plaintiff had directed his
requests for production to defendants who did not possess the
requested documents, his motions were without merit. (See
id. at 3-4.) The same reasoning applies here.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;While
it once again appears that plaintiff failed to fully comply
with the Rule 37 requirements before filing his motions, it
also appears likely that full compliance with the rules would
not have resulted in any resolution of the issues without
court intervention. As to the merits of plaintiff&#39;s
motions, the Court notes once again that defendants explained
to plaintiff while discovery was ongoing that official
documents are the property of Snohomish County and not the
individual defendants, and that the proper defendant to
request official documents from was therefore Snohomish
County. (See Dkt. 90, Ex. I.) Rather than re-direct
his requests for production of documents to the proper party,
plaintiff spent his time and resources filing motions to
compel those documents from the wrong parties. As plaintiff
makes no showing that ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.